Look at it this way... how much more does it cost to build the Q than a P&S? Not much, really - one extra (dis) connection between the lens and the body. Heck, my Q came with a prime, so the lens itself should've been cheaper. The body is nice but so was my SD980's body. If a $300 P&S makes a profit, it's pretty likely that a $310 Q makes a profit, and it's pretty gosh-durn-sure that the extras for the Q (lenses, etc) make money.

With lens leaf shutters, proceeding, and a separate drive capable if moving bigger glass, I'd guesstimate 40% more than a typical P&S. But the price of the original Q was almost $700 an is now down 1/3 with a lowering if item quality between the Q and Q10 bodies. I suspect the Q7 is a further lowering o the build quality while squeezing a marginally better sensor.

The Q has almost no presence on Flickr and as a system camera it is dead last in mirror less sales on Japan. The large chain camera store I frequent only has online stock as there is no walk-in requests.
Companies release money-losing duds all the time. Windows 8.

Not everything wins the market the same way. Something goes off the shelves right away, but for something heavy discounts are needed.
Market is saturated in many areas, and few areas are left intact — say the large sensor compact. Thats' why I can't still get the X100s, or the new GR. Initial demand is quite high.

However in saturated parts of the market, Nikon also started to win more attention once the V1/J1 became cheap. They grew stronger when the V2/J2 was announced, because they could get rid of J1s at a bargain price. Q was following the same recipe, and will perhaps repeat it with the Q7/Q10 bodies too. It seems the whole mirrorless market, apart from large sensor compacts, drags along like that. With the new Pen announced, people already started to buy previous Olympus Pens and are waiting for a new to drop in price.

The next step for Q? With Q7 coming, Q10 will start selling dirt cheap, same as the original Q did when the Q10 arrived.

WHY Q HAS MORE ECONOMIC SENSE THAN ANY OTHER MIRRORLESS CONCEPT?

That's the caveat with digital photography and market oversaturation — people are buying products at the end of their life-cycle, when prices must drop. A camera company that wants to stay in business and have market presence, unfortunately, must have (at least) one such product because it keeps the company on the radar. For Pentax Ricoh, that is Q.

However, Pentax Ricoh most likely have least expensive (to make) offer in that market segment, and just one egg laid there, which doesn't cost them as nearly as what costs others (say Olympus) to sell products at the end of the life cycle. So from that perspective, Pentax Ricoh may not be first in mirrorless sales, but are first in losing way less money than others in a futile market segment. As in everything, it all depends on how you see the game and how you read those numbers.

Thus for Pentax Ricoh, it's much safer not to sell too much in that market segment, because they will inevitably lose way too much money too.

The Q uses a proprietary operating system... not Windows 8. Easy mistake to make though!

But on a lighter note: The majority of Mirrorless Camera users wouldn't benefit from a larger sensor. I consider myself a typical user, I work in a creative industry & therefore like to use a camera that is capable of DSLR type controls; it also needs to have different lenses for different scenarios; it needs to be small enough to carry on day long business trips to different countries in my satchel, with spare battery, additional lenses etc.; it is also my personal camera & needs to be flexible enough for some street photos, creative shots, parties, picnics, sight seeing etc... I would get no advantage from a camera with a larger sensor, the Q has everything I need (well, it will when the wide angle is released). A bigger camera, with bigger lenses would mean I would have to carry a second bag (which I'm just not willing to do). I also wanted to have manual controls similar to a basic DSLR set up because I like the idea of being somewhat educated if I ever do buy into a DSLR system.

The problem Pentax have is not persuading consumers about the Q, but educating the sales guys in shops - who's biggest tool in selling product is numbers. Its easy to tell a customer that a camera with higher specs is better (it makes some sense). For me The Q is the better camera but how is your average sales guy gonna communicate that... He's better off with the easy sell.

People keep mentioning the Nikon 1, this just doesn't appeal to me as a product. It hides all of the controls with software and it feels like using an iPhone rather than a capable camera. I'm sure it takes nice shots, but it also takes the creative experience away from the user... Maybe this is seen as a positive by some!?

It's cheaper than the Evangelion special editions.
The actual retail price is probably slightly lower at 45000-48000 yen and add to that a slight drop in a near future meaning it will be found it at nearly the same price as the Q10 currently is at in Japan.

Aristophantes why do you care? We get it. You don't like the Q. Some people do like it. Why don't you let us have our fun and go and rain on somebody else's parade?

Even if I agree with you about Aristophanes' relentlessness about the Q, I have to agree with him about the pricing issue he points out. At 249$ it was a great little camera to buy. At 500$...not so sure I would have gotten that much value.

Moving on, one thing I noticed in the specs is the new Q processor. That is great news. The Q and Q10 processor performance was far from stellar. Processing everyshot could take precious seconds and make you miss THE good shot...

I'm taking a look at the Q10's specs (PENTAX - Q10 Silver), and other than the sensor itself, I'm not sure what's changed in the Q7? (ISO was maximum 6400 before, but unusable there and I doubt 6400-12800 are any more usable on the Q7).

What do you make of that 'LENS HOOD' in the image?

Assuming the sensor tech hasn't gotten any better, ISO 6400 on the Q7 should have about the same noise as ISO4000 on the Q.

The sensor improvement will make it a hair better. I wouldn't be shocked if 12800 on the Q7 has roughly the same noise as 6400 on the Q.

Assuming the sensor tech hasn't gotten any better, ISO 6400 on the Q7 should have about the same noise as ISO4000 on the Q.

The sensor improvement will make it a hair better. I wouldn't be shocked if 12800 on the Q7 has roughly the same noise as 6400 on the Q.

Taken from the the dpreview review of the MX-1: "At ISO 3200 this becomes more obvious, and by ISO 6400 the MX-1's files are smudgy, short on detail and have taken on a distinctly pink color cast. At ISO 12800, images are good enough for very small prints and social sharing, but not much else."
Sounds like a good place to limit the ISO as "social sharing" might be enough for many occasions.

People keep mentioning the Nikon 1, this just doesn't appeal to me as a product. It hides all of the controls with software and it feels like using an iPhone rather than a capable camera. I'm sure it takes nice shots, but it also takes the creative experience away from the user... Maybe this is seen as a positive by some

Yep... That's exactly why the Nikon 1 didn't light my fire, either.

People can carp all they want about the Q's sensor size, blah blah blah, but the things that are important to me about it are:

1) You can take excellent photos with it.
2) It's impossibly tiny
3) The tele range you can get when you mount a DSLR lens on it is staggering
4) It has controls like a DSLR
5) It's built like a tank (at least my original Q is.)
6) It's FUN to shoot with

I dunno as I'd say a $500 launch price is too much for both the body and the lens, either... The lens alone goes for about half that.

Q's price is definitely a big issue (maybe at least outside of Japan). When I was deciding between Nikon 1 and Q, I ended up going with Q because I love that it has all the familiar Pentax DSLR controls and 2-300 dollars range made it a no brainier. Rest of the features, like using K-mount lens on it, are just icings on the cake. But I guess Pentax thinks that price is fine in their biggest market and as long as they feel they are selling enough units the price won't change too drastically any time soon.

P.S. To me, the joy of using Q really is that it has all the physical controls of big brother in a tiny little package. Although I do hope it will have touchscreen support in the future (primarily for quick AF selection), the fact that Pentax didn't give up on the physical control aspect of the camera makes it more interesting.

Japanese prices are always higher, because they have compensate for an almost 20% drop over the first couple of months. An example is the GR, which is 99,000 yen ($1000) in Japan. This happens every time news comes from Japan. People see the Japanese price and freak out and then the overseas prices are really competitive.

Anyway, the Q certainly sells well in Japan and you see them out on the street as well. Looking at BCN Ranking's lens sales charts, they have been selling far more Q lenses than K-mount over the last year. The lenses are quite expensive when sold separately, so there must be some profit there.

I think this model looks like a meaningful upgrade, although I don't like this body style much, so I was hoping for a change. I hope they make a version of the GR Digital IV's 28mm equivalent F1.9 lens. That seems like an obvious thing to do with the new sensor size.

I think this model looks like a meaningful upgrade, although I don't like this body style much, so I was hoping for a change. I hope they make a version of the GR Digital IV's 28mm equivalent F1.9 lens. That seems like an obvious thing to do with the new sensor size.

It certainly explains all the patents for 1/1.7" lenses which had Ricoh users scratching their heads wondering if they were for new GXR modules or a variety of GRDs.

Q's price is definitely a big issue (maybe at least outside of Japan). When I was deciding between Nikon 1 and Q, I ended up going with Q because I love that it has all the familiar Pentax DSLR controls and 2-300 dollars range made it a no brainier. Rest of the features, like using K-mount lens on it, are just icings on the cake. But I guess Pentax thinks that price is fine in their biggest market and as long as they feel they are selling enough units the price won't change too drastically any time soon.

P.S. To me, the joy of using Q really is that it has all the physical controls of big brother in a tiny little package. Although I do hope it will have touchscreen support in the future (primarily for quick AF selection), the fact that Pentax didn't give up on the physical control aspect of the camera makes it more interesting.

The Q7 can actually be viewed now as a GRD with interchangeable lenses. Even better actually with a new 12MP backlit CMOS sensor versus the GRD IV's aging 10MP CCD. Even slightly smaller body too...

If Ricoh had launched an actual GRD system, it would have been an awesome development. And it is.